Altman v. Meridian Tp.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1992
• Docket Number: No. 7,No. 90316,90316,7
• Citation: 439 Mich. 623,487 N.W.2d 155
• Parties: , 440 Mich. 1204 Robert ALTMAN and Estate of Alvin Altman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP and Meridian Township Board, Defendants-Appellants. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 155

487 N.W.2d 155

439 Mich. 623, 440 Mich. 1204

Robert ALTMAN and Estate of Alvin Altman, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP and Meridian Township Board, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 90316.

Calendar No. 7.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued March 4, 1992.

Decided June 8, 1992.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Aug. 4, 1992.

[440 Mich. 625] Donald A. Hines, Mark A. Bush, Fraser Trebilcock Davis & Foster, P.C., Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellees.

William K. Fahey, Stephen J. Rhodes, Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith, P.C., Lansing, for defendants-appellants.

[440 Mich. 626] Bauckham, Sparks, Rolfe & Thomsen, P.C. by John H. Bauckham, Eileen W. Wicklund, Kalamazoo, for Michigan Townships Ass'n and Michigan Municipal League.

OPINION

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

We address in this case the authority of a local governing body to disapprove a proposed subdivision plat pursuant to the Subdivision Control Act (SCA), M.C.L. Sec. 560.101 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 26.430(101) et seq., and the scope of such a body's authority to place conditions on the approval of such a plat consistent with this Court's decision in Arrowhead Development Co. v. Livingston Co. Road Comm., 413 Mich. 505, 322 N.W.2d 702 (1982). We conclude that the local township board of trustees in this case acted within its authority under the SCA and Arrowhead.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 15, 1987, Meridian Township granted the developer plaintiffs' request to rezone a fifty-three-acre parcel of property north of Haslett Road in Meridian Township for single-family, medium density residential development. The proposed subdivision plan submitted in connection with the rezoning provided for two access routes to Haslett Road. The first was an indirect access at the western end of the development, connecting via a stub street, Wood Knoll Drive, to an existing subdivision cul-de-sac, Creekwood Lane, which in turn opens onto Haslett Road. ¹ The second was a direct boulevard access opening directly onto Haslett Road at the eastern end of the development. The development of the overall subdivision was apparently envisioned in four stages, although the parties dispute whether it was understood, at the time of the rezoning, whether the direct access road would be built contemporaneously with the first stage of the development, or would not be completed until later stages of the development.

In any event, the developer submitted a preliminary plat for the first phase of the development, entitled Meadowbrook Estates, on March 2, 1988. This plat proposed construction of twenty-five new homes on an 8.8-acre parcel at the eastern end of the overall development area. For this initial phase of the development, access to Haslett Road was to be provided only through Creekwood Lane, and not through the direct boulevard access. As required by the SCA, the developer submitted the plat to the Ingham County Health Department, the Ingham County Drain Commission, and the Ingham County Road Commission, and obtained the necessary approvals. The road commission, however, imposed the condition, not challenged by the developer, that a direct access route to Haslett Road be built for hauling and construction purposes. The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission and the Haslett Public Schools also approved the plat.

The Meridian Township Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the plat on June 20, 1988, and heard evidence that increased traffic from the proposed development would aggravate an already dangerous traffic condition at the intersection of Creekwood Lane and Haslett Road. Nevertheless, the planning commission approved the plat on July 11, 1988, by a vote of five to three, with two of the dissenting commissioners expressing concern about the increased traffic load on the Creekwood-Haslett intersection. The planning commission's approval was subject to six conditions, none challenged by the developer. The fifth condition was that future development beyond the twenty-five homes of phase one would require the construction of the proposed direct access route to Haslett Road.

The Meridian Township Board of Trustees, the final local authority with regard to plat approval, considered the proposed plat at its regular meeting of September 20, 1988, and disapproved it by a vote of five to one. At meetings on October 3 and November 22, 1988, the board amended the minutes of its September 20 meeting to specify the reasons for its disapproval of the plat and the key condition of approval, which were adopted by a vote of five to two, as follows:

"(1) The subdivision is designed in such a way as to encourage use of Creekwood [Lane] by through traffic. Such a design is not consistent with Section 101-4.12(a) of the subdivision regulations, which states that streets shall be so arranged so as to discourage their use by through traffic.

"(2) The alignment of Wood Knoll Drive provides sole access onto Creekwood [Lane], which requires egress onto Haslett Road at a point where there is less than 750 feet of sight distance--in violation of Section VII.B.1 of the County Road Commission Plat Procedures. It would be practical for the proprietor to provide access to Haslett Road farther to the east, where there is 750 feet of sight distance."

The developer filed suit to overturn the disapproval of his plat on November 3, 1988, contending that (1) the township board failed properly to approve or disapprove the plat within ninety days of filing, with reasons for disapproval and conditions for approval stated in writing, in accordance with SCA Sec. 112(2), and (2) the township board lacked substantive authority under the SCA and Arrowhead, supra, to disapprove the plat and condition its approval on the requirement that the developer build the direct access route to Haslett Road. The Ingham Circuit Court, on February 1, 1989, granted the township's motion for summary disposition, rejecting the developer's Sec. 112(2) claim, finding that the board's disapproval of the plat was supported by SCA Sec. 182(4)(a), and distinguishing Arrowhead. The court also stated, in its oral opinion of January 25, 1989, that the township board was entitled to require the developer to build an entrance to Haslett Road more than 750 feet east of the Creekwood-Haslett intersection, thereby indicating that the court also endorsed the board's reliance upon Sec. VII.B.1 of the road commission plat procedures. The developer appealed.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's ruling with regard to the Sec. 112(2) issue, ² but reversed with regard to SCA Sec. 182(4)(a) and Sec. VII.B.1 of the road commission plat procedures, and held that the township board's condition for approval violated the rule of Arrowhead. ³ The Court remanded the case to the circuit court to consider whether the township board's action was justified under Sec. 101-4.12(a) of the Meridian Township Subdivision Regulations. The township applied for leave to appeal to this Court. In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we remanded the case to the circuit court for clarification of its ruling, while retaining jurisdiction. 437 Mich. 1022, 470 N.W.2d 401 (1991).

On June 25, 1991, the circuit court clarified its opinion as follows:

"In the opinion granting summary disposition to Defendant (issued from the bench on January 25, 1989), this Court did, indeed, view Haslett Road as the existing public street and Creekwood [Lane] as not being 'suitable access' to that public street.

"The Court recognizes that Creekwood is literally, a public street itself, and that it provides some access to the outside world.

"The issue is whether the legislature authorized a township to decide whether such a residential street provides 'suitable' access. In this Court's view the legislature did grant that authority, and the township may withhold permission to develop the plat until suitable access is provided."

We then granted leave to appeal, 439 Mich. 864 (1991), and we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, finding ourselves in agreement with the reasoning of the circuit court.

II. ANALYSIS

A. The Township Board's Statutory Authority

The authority of local governing bodies to approve and disapprove proposed subdivision plats is created and governed by the SCA. SCA Sec. 106 provides:

"No approving authority or agency having the power to approve or reject plats shall condition approval upon compliance with, or base a rejection upon, any requirement other than those included in [SCA Sec. ] 105."

SCA Sec. 105 provides:

"Approval of preliminary and final plats shall be conditioned upon compliance with:

"(a) The provisions of this act.

"(b) Any ordinance or published rules of a municipality or county adopted to carry out the provisions of this act.

"(c) Any published rules of a county drain commissioner, county road commission, or county plat board adopted to carry out the provisions of this act." (Subsections [d]-[g] omitted.)

In this case, the township board asserts three grounds for its rejection of the developer's proposed plat, one deriving from each quoted subsection. The board argues that its action is supported by (1) a "provision[ ] of this act," namely, SCA Sec. 182(4)(a), (2) a "published rule[ ] of a municipality," namely, Sec. 101-4.12(a) of the Meridian Township Subdivision Regulations, and (3) a "published rule[ ] of a ... county road commission," namely, Sec. VII.B.1 of the Ingham County Road Commission Procedures for Plat Street Development.

We do not address the validity of the township board's reliance upon Sec. 101-4.12(a) of the subdivision regulations, in view of the fact that neither the circuit court nor the Court of Appeals has passed on that issue, and we find that we need not address that issue in order to resolve this case. The three issues before this Court are the validity of SCA Sec. 182(4)(a) and Sec. VII.B.1 of the road commission plat procedures as bases for the...